I agree with the fact that banning access to Ayers Rock will set a dangerous precedent.

In effect....it will allow for exclusion zones within Australia btwn Australians.

I'm just as much an Australian as any Aboriginal person as far as I'm concerned.

I was born/bred here and will one day die here in Australia too.

I have just as much claim to my country as anyone else.

I'm not any less of an Australian than any Aboriginal person. Why should I be treated as inferior?

All my bloody life I've been made to feel inferior because my parents were born n bred in Europe and that being born and bred in Australia meant nothing.

No. Stuff it....I'm sick of being excluded. And I won't tolerate it any more.

Not once was I asked how I felt/identified given the fact that the only country I ever knew was Australia.

What rights does an Australian born person have?

Well I believe they ought to have the same rights as ALL Australian born people.

Enough of exclusions/divisions.....our kids deserve better

Exactly

How many generations does it take to be considered a native of a country?

Remember, tge Australian aboriginees KILLED OFF the original owners of the land.What goes around, comes around.

I consider myself as much a traditional owner of this country as any who declare themselves aboriginal.

I have contributed with my labour, my money and my children.

Where are my land rights?

Reverse racism, that is what it is.

My Irish and German great-greats came here in the 1850's - when the population was under a million ..... the Scots arrived in the 1870's... family members have fought in three wars.. I think we've earned the right to climb Ayers Rock......

Just as an aside - if the Japanese had taken Australia, they would have treated the natives like they treated the New Guinea natives etc... after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, any Japanese survivors were killed by natives when they made land, because of the way the Japanese had treated them first, using them as slave labour and killing them on whims etc.

Their second type of support came from the remnant populations from whom the three Australian types were supposedly derived. Birdsell argued that, between the Bay of Bengal and the Melanesian islands, there was an arc of isolated peoples still in existence who all shared Negrito characteristics. They included the pygmy peoples of the Andaman Islands off the west coast of Burma, the Semang of the central mountains of the Malay Peninsula, the Aeta of the rainforests of several of the larger Philippine islands, a number of Negrito tribes, including the Tapiro and the Timorini, in the New Guinea highlands, the people of the Varzimberg Mountains of the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain, and some tribes in the interior of northern New Caledonia.

These were all remnants, Birdsell argued, of a chain of migration by ancient Negritos across south Asia to the Pacific. He speculated that the chain had begun in Africa with an ancestral population of Negrito pygmies but the only connection he could make between the African and Oceanic Negritos was a propensity for women to develop steatopygia, a genetic condition that causes an excess of fat deposits on the buttocks and upper thighs. The second and third waves of migrant people, the authors argued, were also connected to remnants of ancient populations still living in Asia. The Murrayians, Birdsell said, had come from an Asian people whose other vestiges were the Ainu of Hokkaido in northern Japan and Sakhalin Island. Similarly, the Carpentarians bore similar physical characteristics to the Vedda people of south India and Sri Lanka.

The third type of evidence they offered was archaeological. Tindale and Birdsell claimed that excavations of ancient skulls and stone tools confirmed their thesis. They said the bones from Australia’s two most famous ancient burial sites, Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp, supported their ideas. Most archaeologists who support a “one people” model of Aboriginal origins find it hard to explain how the more “gracile” people found at Lake Mungo are much older (more than 25,000 years old) than the more “robust” skulls found at Kow Swamp (10,000-13,000 years old). Theories about evolution within the one population would expect the reverse. Tindale and Birdsell, however, said this pattern not only showed that Australia was populated by more than one type of people but it also fitted their particular thesis. The gracile or small-boned skeletons were probably those of the smaller, more slender Negritos, while the robust skulls were most likely Murrayian people

Their second type of support came from the remnant populations from whom the three Australian types were supposedly derived. Birdsell argued that, between the Bay of Bengal and the Melanesian islands, there was an arc of isolated peoples still in existence who all shared Negrito characteristics. They included the pygmy peoples of the Andaman Islands off the west coast of Burma, the Semang of the central mountains of the Malay Peninsula, the Aeta of the rainforests of several of the larger Philippine islands, a number of Negrito tribes, including the Tapiro and the Timorini, in the New Guinea highlands, the people of the Varzimberg Mountains of the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain, and some tribes in the interior of northern New Caledonia.

These were all remnants, Birdsell argued, of a chain of migration by ancient Negritos across south Asia to the Pacific. He speculated that the chain had begun in Africa with an ancestral population of Negrito pygmies but the only connection he could make between the African and Oceanic Negritos was a propensity for women to develop steatopygia, a genetic condition that causes an excess of fat deposits on the buttocks and upper thighs. The second and third waves of migrant people, the authors argued, were also connected to remnants of ancient populations still living in Asia. The Murrayians, Birdsell said, had come from an Asian people whose other vestiges were the Ainu of Hokkaido in northern Japan and Sakhalin Island. Similarly, the Carpentarians bore similar physical characteristics to the Vedda people of south India and Sri Lanka.

The third type of evidence they offered was archaeological. Tindale and Birdsell claimed that excavations of ancient skulls and stone tools confirmed their thesis. They said the bones from Australia’s two most famous ancient burial sites, Lake Mungo and Kow Swamp, supported their ideas. Most archaeologists who support a “one people” model of Aboriginal origins find it hard to explain how the more “gracile” people found at Lake Mungo are much older (more than 25,000 years old) than the more “robust” skulls found at Kow Swamp (10,000-13,000 years old). Theories about evolution within the one population would expect the reverse. Tindale and Birdsell, however, said this pattern not only showed that Australia was populated by more than one type of people but it also fitted their particular thesis. The gracile or small-boned skeletons were probably those of the smaller, more slender Negritos, while the robust skulls were most likely Murrayian people

Now medical professionals have to do aboriginal awareness training so that they understand the aboriginal kultcha.

A team of consultants (jobs for the abbos Ill bet) have dictated how much aboriginal artwork needs to be displayed (from their mates Ill bet) and face to face training ( more jobs for their mates at some exorbident cost) to ensure they recognize the needs and more importantly wants of our lazy bretheren.

I agree with the fact that banning access to Ayers Rock will set a dangerous precedent.

In effect....it will allow for exclusion zones within Australia btwn Australians.

I'm just as much an Australian as any Aboriginal person as far as I'm concerned.

I was born/bred here and will one day die here in Australia too.

I have just as much claim to my country as anyone else.

I'm not any less of an Australian than any Aboriginal person. Why should I be treated as inferior?

All my bloody life I've been made to feel inferior because my parents were born n bred in Europe and that being born and bred in Australia meant nothing.

No. Stuff it....I'm sick of being excluded. And I won't tolerate it any more.

Not once was I asked how I felt/identified given the fact that the only country I ever knew was Australia.

What rights does an Australian born person have?

Well I believe they ought to have the same rights as ALL Australian born people.

Enough of exclusions/divisions.....our kids deserve better

Exactly

How many generations does it take to be considered a native of a country?

Remember, tge Australian aboriginees KILLED OFF the original owners of the land.What goes around, comes around.

I consider myself as much a traditional owner of this country as any who declare themselves aboriginal.

I have contributed with my labour, my money and my children.

Where are my land rights?

Reverse racism, that is what it is.

My Irish and German great-greats came here in the 1850's - when the population was under a million ..... the Scots arrived in the 1870's... family members have fought in three wars.. I think we've earned the right to climb Ayers Rock......

Just as an aside - if the Japanese had taken Australia, they would have treated the natives like they treated the New Guinea natives etc... after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, any Japanese survivors were killed by natives when they made land, because of the way the Japanese had treated them first, using them as slave labour and killing them on whims etc.

John if the government handed Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that ownership would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?

Or would common sense kick in?

Would it make a difference if they let non-white people take photos from a distance and preceded it with a lengthy campaign of guilt tripping non-white people into staying off the beach because it made their children cry?

Your lies about no-one wanting to climb the rock are no less idiotic than saying people are permitted to go to a public pool but aren't allowed to swim in it.

The only idiocy here is this absurd strawman that I said no one wants to climb the rock. Honestly, where did you get that rubbish from? Of course there will be people who want to climb the rock. Just like there are people who want to climb the Opera House, or climb the trees at the Botanical Garden. But we don't say those people are "banned" from visiting just because they are not allowed to climb those things. That is your logical inconsistency.

How about the people who want to visit Uluru, but don't wish to climb it (ie the majority of visitors)? Are they also "banned" from visiting? Do the majority of people who visit Bondi have no intention or desire to sit on the sand and/or go in the surf? Your logic is not only inconsistent, its dishonest.

They are banned from Uluru Gandalf. Or they would be, if these racist, sexist aborigines had their way. Perhaps you are confused about what Uluru is. It is not a national park. It is not a general vicinity. It is a rock. I am not saying they are banned from a national park or a general vicinity. I am saying they are banned from Uluru. Being able to take photos from a distance would not change this.

You are literally saying you are not allowed to "visit" Uluru unless you can physically climb it. I shouldn't need to explain how absurd this reasoning is.

Quote:

The swimming pool analogy is spot on. It captures perfectly the idiocy of your analogy with a tree in a garden or climbing the opera house. Would you say people are allowed to come and visit your home if they were only allowed to stand out on the foot path and take photos?

You still can't address the fundamental flaw in your logic. People don't 'visit' either my house or Bondi to stand outside it and soak in the view and take photos and admire the geology. Yet most people who visit Uluru do it for precisely that reason. And it beyond absurd to claim that these people are "banned" from making that visit in the event of a climbing ban.

Until the aborigines started guilt tripping everyone, the majority did climb it Gandalf. Also, I expect the rise of the grey nomad has lead to a larger number of visitors who are not physically capable of making the climb. Niether of these are valid reasons for a ban, or for saying that people are not actually banned. Whether some people would otherwise choose voluntarily not to climb does not change whether they are banned. Likewise, being able to visit the gift shop or look from a distance has no bearing on whether they are banned. They are still banned Gandalf.

And there are plenty of private residences that people visit for the sole purpose of standing outside and looking, even though they are explicitly or implicitly banned from entering.

You are confusing Uluru with the gift shop and the surrounding desert, and it is no less absurd than confusing the right to stand on the street and look at someone's house with the right to enter. Again, whether people would like to enter is irrelevant to the fact of whether they are banned from doing so.

FD, just stop this silly pretense of calling it a ban on 'visiting' the rock, and we can be done. Its a ban on climbing, plain and simple. You overreached saying this, along with your idiotic claims that it was discriminatory and sexist (no one was going to climb it under the proposed ban). Clearly you have a demonstrably racist agenda (exhibit A: Aborigines are zoo animals), and you resorted to exaggeration and flat out dishonesty to peddle it.

Non-aboriginal people are banned from Uluru Gandalf. It is your idiotic strawman to make it about "visiting" and that being able to enter the gift shop and take photos from a distance counts as visiting. In what context, outside of the spineless defence of racism, sexism and government imposed sacred cows, does taking a photo from a distance count as visiting something? Do you visit the moon when you look up at night time? Do you visit your neighbours when you look out your window?

John if the government handed Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that ownership would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?

blah blah blah ....lots of groups of white people own land around bondi that I am restricted from accessing FD. Why isn't that racism?

It's a long way to goNothing much to see when you get thereIt's an expensive exerciseVarious nations have put that whole area under a Warning sign, advising their nationals to stay away from it

Doesn't bother me if tourists give it a wide berthPlenty else to see in this country and they're easier and cheaper to get to, to stay at, to explore and with far less of the dangers inherent in going near Australian Aborigines

John if the government handed Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that ownership would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?

blah blah blah ....lots of groups of white people own land around bondi that I am restricted from accessing FD. Why isn't that racism?

John if the government handed Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that ownership would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?

blah blah blah ....lots of groups of white people own land around bondi that I am restricted from accessing FD. Why isn't that racism?

They don't own the beach John. They don't own national parks. Aboriginal people have exactly the same right to buy a home in Bondi or anywhere else in Australia as any other citizen. They are not treated differently under the law. That is why it is not racist. One more try for a straight answer:

If the government handed control of Bondi Beach to a group of white people, with the expectation that they would ban all women and non-white men in accordance with their religious views, and that control over the beach would be an exclusive birthright of their children, would you insist that it is not racist so long as there was a theoretical possibility of them letting a non-white person in who adopted their religion and culture?

is it dawning on you how idiotic your argument is yet? Or does it still need some work?